Talk:392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division

Action on Korčula
"The division participated in the clearing of Partisans from the island of Korčula". Unternehmen Herbstgewitter II happened 22-26 December 1943, and no part of that division took part in it. It was conducted by two btls of Rgt 750 (118. jaeger Div.), Brandenburg Küstenjäger Bataillon, a company of 202. Pz. Bataillon, and some Artillery and Navy elements. It was conducted under V SS Corps command. 392nd (Croatian) Infantry Division was under XV. Mountain Corps, far away, and it was not even introduced in combat before 1.1.44, as correctly stated in article.--Gorran (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a source for that please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For action on Korčula: Mirko Novović, Prva Dalmatinska Proletarska NOU Brigada pp. 242-247, Ivo Ferenca Partizani južne Dalmacije: Trinaesta južnodalmatinska narodnooslobodilačka udarna brigada, pp. 32-49... --Gorran (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you may well be right about this issue, but these individual Partisan brigade histories are really questionable as reliable secondary sources, they aren't really even third party sources. Please focus on reliable secondary sources, preferably published by university presses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've searched for Korcula in Schraml, and there is only one mention of it (regarding a garrison battalion), so I'm going to delete it as having failed verification. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * About WW2 events and developments in Yugoslavia, works published by military institutions are unavoidable. There are lots of works written in scientific manner, with scientific scrutiny, reviewed by people with scientific titles, published by Vojnoistorijski institut and Vojnoizdavački zavod. Comparing them with Osprey Publishing is an insult for them.--Gorran (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And what are you basing that on? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Vojnoistorijski institut was a scientific institution, and WW2 was in focus of it's work. Produced lots of scientific works and a number of good historians. It is now renamed to Institut za strategijska istraživanja (Institute for Strategic Studies). If you insist on dismissing Yugoslav works, I'd like to open discussion on it. I can ask my friend, who got PhD in Graz with thesis on the subject of exchanges of prisoners in Yugoslavia during WW2, to give some broader opinion on Yugoslav literature?--Gorran (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No need for snarkiness. I don't dismiss Yugoslav works, I just avoid them (and works by Yugoslav emigres linked to one of the factions during the war) unless it's necessary because the information just isn't available elsewhere, and hopefully in those cases significant aspects can be corroborated from works by non-Yugoslavs. If it still looks dubious to me, I just don't use it. I certainly use more recent reliable sources from the countries of the former Yugoslavia, although my access to works in Cyrillic isn't good. It's pretty clear that historical work done in the former Yugoslavia by Yugoslavs between 1945 and 1980 (at the earliest) can have some things about it that are of significant concern to non-Yugoslav historians. Such things as what could be said or published at the time, propaganda and related issues. Not to say there wasn't good work done, there certainly was, but there was also stuff published which has been pretty much dismissed by international academia, and there were non-academic factors at work to some extent for at least 35 years. There is a similar issue with works done locally during and in the immediate aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars of the 90's, lots of axes to grind. So, I generally avoid them, preferring non-local sources so far as is possible. In this specific case, I was not comparing the work published by the institute with Osprey, I was questioning the value of a Yugoslav work on issues of which German units were where when. The best source for that is usually a German one, IMO, which is why I reached for Schraml, which is the key German text on the Croatian legionnaire divisions. This article stills needs some further development using Schraml to get it to the standard I'd be happy with putting up for GA, let alone MILHIST ACR. Hope that clarifies my views on this. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any intention of snarkiness - I apologize if it sounds like. In fact, I think we're on the same page here, only with different levels of knowledge on different subjects. In short about works 1945-1980 in Yugoslavia: Of course, there was some level of restriction, some level of bias, of self-censorship. But, a lot of usable work is done - for example, publication of 174 books of documents from all sides (Zbornici dokumenata). It is a valuable source for researchers, you can ask Lepre :) . Further, from the sixties onwards almost all relevant German documents become available locally, in Vojnoistorijski institut (Institute for Military History) in Belgrade, namely microfilm copies from NARA - and it become standard for writing to consult and reference German documents. Researchers had benefits of both intimate knowledge of one side and documentation of the other, and that resulted in a large number of usable works from 1970 to 1990. Most Partisan units are examined in detail: for every combat action partisan view is confronted with other side documents. But the most important is abundance of personal information: virtually for every partisan combatant you have bio data about his origin, affiliation to the unit, and place and circumstance of death. And for every action you have a good account of casualties, with a list of names. Not only estimation. That kind of info was not suppressed in any way, and that is why relaying on German numbers about Partisan losses is just inappropriate. For this article Schraml is of course unavoidable source, but it is doomed to remain one-sided if not consulted books on XI Corps and 13 and 35 Division NOVJ for example. Some available on internet: Petar Kleut: JEDANAESTI KORPUS NOVJ, Petar Kleut: 35. LIČKA DIVIZIJA. Regards!--Gorran (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No doubt Kleut's works are worth a look. Just a point of clarification on the collections of documents, of which there are many, as you say. They are collections of primary documents (sometimes translated from the German or Italian). ie Chetnik ones, Ustase ones, German ones, Nedic government ones, etc. Secondary sources written by academics that use those collections as reference material are a completely different matter, but the collections themselves are primary sources. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * True, that's reasonable. But, I think, you can sometimes consult documents to avoid dissemination of some unintentional error from literature - like in this case with Korčula. I assume nobody wants to spread other people's lapses. By the way, there's a number of that in Kleut. No book is perfect, I suppose.--Gorran (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)